Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Iqbal Singh and Ors.

DRT27 Mar 2023OA/1290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 55,86,381.20 payable to HDFC Bank Limited against three respondents who defaulted on credit facilities. The court granted uniform simple interest at 7% per annum and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 55,86,381.20 with simple interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. 15.06.2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce claim through sale of properties.

Hdfc Bank versus Iqbal Singh and Ors. — Insurance | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1290/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.06.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 27^th OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, having its registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, its Branch at Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana and HDFC Bank House, Plot No. 28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Authorised representative, Sh. Jatinder Mishra

¶6

…..Applicant Bank

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh R/o VPO Abubshhar, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Mandi Dabwali, Haryana

¶9

Ms Amritpal Kaur W/o Sh. Iqbal Singh R/o VPO Abubshhar, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Mandi Dabwali, Haryana

¶10

Sh. Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Bhajan Singh R/o House No. 42, Village Abubshhar, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Mandi Dabwali, Haryana

¶11

…..Defendants

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Amit Rishi counsel for the applicant bank Defendants ex parte vide order dated 17.01.2023

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank

¶15

under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity), against defendants for recovery of Rs.55,86,381.20/-(Rs. Fifty Five lacs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One and Twenty Paisa only) . The OA has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank, stated to be competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-A1 (copy).

¶16

The brief facts as per the Original Application are that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for grant of cash credit-1 facility of

¶17

OA 1290/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. IQBAL SINGH AND OTHERS 2

¶18

Rs. 25,50,000/-, cash credit-2 facility of Rs. 15,30,000/- and term loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- vide loan application dated 19.03.2019, Annexure-A2 (copy).

¶19

The applicant bank sanctioned the above said loan facilities, i.e. CC-1 of Rs. 25,50,000/-, CC-2 of Rs. 14,40,000/- and term loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the defendants vide sanction letters dated 28.04.2016, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy) as per the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

In order to secure the aforementioned credit facilities, the defendants executed various loan and security documents, i.e. agreements dated 16.05.2016 for cash credit-1 and 2, Annexures-A4 and A5 (copy) and agreement dated 16.05.2016 for term loan, Annexure-A6 (copy).

¶21

The aforesaid loans were further secured by creation of mortgage by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land measuring 143 Kanals 3 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Abubshahar, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana, fully described in para No. 5.9 of the Original Application.

¶22

The documents related to mortgaged property are as under:

¶23

i. Registered mortgage deed dated 31.12.2004, Annexure-A7 (copy).

¶24

ii. Letter dated 04.04.2016 to the Tehsildar, Mandi-Dabwali, regarding entry/mutation of mortgaged property along with title search report and non-encumbrance certificate, Annexure-A8 (colly) (copy).

¶25

It is further the case of the applicant bank that the loan facilities were duly availed of by the defendants but they failed to maintain the financial discipline of the applicant bank and resultantly, the loan account became NPA because those were irregular. The applicant bank recalled the

¶26

OA 1290/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. IQBAL SINGH AND OTHERS 3

¶27

entire outstanding amount vide notice dated 19.05.2022, along with its original postal receipt, Annexure-A9 (colly) (copy), but to no avail.

¶28

It is further the case of the applicant bank that after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, a sum of Rs.55,86,381.20/-(Rs.

¶29

Fifty Five lacs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One and

¶30

Twenty Paisa only) is recoverable against the defendants as per statements of accounts certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, Annexures-A10, A11 and A12 (copy).

¶31

Notice of the Original Application was duly served upon the defendants, but since none appeared on behalf of the defendants despite service, thus, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 17.01.2023.

¶32

Since the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank preferred the present Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶33

In support of the contents of the OA, affidavit of evidence of Sh. Jatinder Mishra, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank was filed.

¶34

This Tribunal has heard ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully.

¶35

It was argued by the learned counsel that in view of unrebutted documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant bank had proved its case against the defendants for recovery of the amount sought. From perusal of Annexures-A1 to A12 , it is clear that the defendants had approached the applicant bank for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them after they had executed all the relevant documents as stated above in favour of the applicant bank. Unfortunately, the

¶36

OA 1290/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. IQBAL SINGH AND OTHERS 4

¶37

defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.55,86,381.20/-(Rs. Fifty Five lacs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One and Twenty Paisa only) from the defendants.

¶38

In so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the applicant bank has claimed interest @12% per annum plus @16% per annum penal interest for CC-1, @15.45% per annum plus @16% per annum penal interest for CC-2 and @15.45% per annum plus @24% per annum for penal interest in term loan. In sanction letters dated 28.04.2016, Annexure-A3 (colly) (copy), the rates of interest have been mentioned @12% per annum for CC-1, @15.45% per annum for CC-2 and @15.4% per annum for term loan.

¶39

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogatives of mercy and magnanimity are the brightest jewels in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including the Pandemic Covid-19 affecting businesses, nature of mortgaged property, purpose of loan, i.e. agriculture, present conditions of economy based on agriculture, quantum of loan, prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yesteryears, defendant No. 2 being a lady while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the OA till realisation of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In the result, the Original Application is allowed with costs declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of

¶41

OA 1290/2022 HDFC BANK V/S SH. IQBAL SINGH AND OTHERS 5

¶42

Rs.55,86,381.20/-(Rs. Fifty Five lacs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One and Twenty Paisa only) with current and future simple interest @ 7% per annum , w.e.f. 15.06.2022 , till the date of realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged/hypothecated property of the defendants in execution proceedings, if not sold earlier under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or otherwise. If the dues of the bank still remain unsatisfied, applicant bank shall be at liberty to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets/property of the defendants. The applicant bank is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Recovery Officer concerned on 08.05.2023.

¶45

Copy of this order be sent to the applicant bank and the defendants through registered/speed post. This order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal.

¶46

Announced in the open Tribunal (M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer

¶47

DRT-2,Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank v. Iqbal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Iqbal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Bahety versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Ravi Ranjan Tiwari

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s Raj Shree Bhog Chakki Ataa

Bank of India versus Kamlesh Kumar

Bank of India versus Mrs. Shashi Kala

Ms Sanatan Logistics Pvt. Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited